Apr 22, 2016

In the 'How To Do Social Media Wrong' handbook there must by now be a whole chapter dedicated to why brands shouldn't try to exploit somebody's death, yet 3M's social media team clearly hadn't read it before hitting send on this heavily branded tweet following the death of Prince.

Nor had whoever at Cheerios thought this was a good idea.

The social media team at a breakfast cereal company say 'Cheerio' to good taste.

Clearly neither brand has learned from the likes of Crocs, so rightly lambasted earlier this year after trying to exploit the death of David Bowie in order to remind people how awful their shoes look.

There will of course be those who say "ah, but people are talking about them, so it has worked", before adding "there's no such thing as bad publicity, you know" - because somebody always says that.

But there is, which is no doubt why Cheerios subsequently deleted the above tweet.

The safest rule of thumb is surely to assume tragedies such as deaths and natural disasters are off limits as far as "real time marketing opportunities" go. It just seems incredible anybody actually needs to be told that.

Mar 14, 2016

David Cameron’s PR operation has been criticised for fobbing off local newspapers with an article attributed to the PM that was compiled with an "insert name of county here" level of sincerity and all the humanity of an automated voice menu on a telephone helpline ("To hear why David Cameron loves… Yorkshire… press 1, now").

The same article, with minor edits, was hawked all over the country, making clear in the process that not only had Cameron been nowhere near the copy, but also the extent to which his PR people thought they could get editors to all run any old puff-piece for them for free simply by dangling the PM's name.

From the outset, the editors will have been well aware the article wasn't really written by Cameron. Of course it wasn't. Newspapers are familiar with ghost-written columns and contributions. But there still needs to be something in it for the paper and its readers. There needs to be a quality to the article, or an exclusivity that lifts it at least notionally above editorially worthless free-advertising.

Feb 21, 2016

Recently, I read a list published by Press Gazette of the most unpopular jargon terms and clichés used by PR people. Right on cue, the very next email I received from a PR person explained they were "reaching out" to me (because contacting, or emailing, or just leaving it to the recipient to recognise they have received an email that is presumably about something, clearly aren't clever enough).

"Reaching out" was number one on a list which also featured hackneyed horrors such as "curate","synergy", "solutions" and the ubiquitous "ecosystem" (which is probably OK if you work in the Eden Project or you’re studying the impact of deforestation or over-fishing, but otherwise should probably be left alone).

Somehow "leverage" didn’t make the top 10, nor did "traction" or "cadence" which I am hearing misused on an ever more regular basis. There are clearly now too many buzzwords being used and abused to limit ourselves to just a top 10 of the worst offenders. But it isn't just PR people mangling language so preposterously. Far from it.

An over-reliance on meaningless buzzwords and clichés has taken root in many industries and occupations and in part seems a reaction to the cynicism faced by people trying to sell ideas, opinions, consultancy or other professional services. In occupations facing high levels of cynicism, such as advertising, marketing, politics and even journalism, inane language is all too common.

Of course, not everybody in these occupations is guilty. Again, far from it. Smart people in any occupation can overcome cynicism by speaking confidently and sensibly, with clarity and authority.

But it does appear some people, who perhaps feel insecure or inadequate in the face of cynicism, feel the need to dress up their ideas, actions, products or policies in this lexicon of the ludicrous. Some people fall for this of course, but that doesn't make it right - because lots of people don't fall for it and the nonsense merely fuels the very cynicism they were hoping to head off, or at least bore or baffle into submission.

The FT's Lucy Kellaway does a great job each year of highlighting the guff spoken in the name of big business and was front of the queue to deride the World Economic Forum's recently published list of the '36 best quotes from Davos 2016' which comprised a collection of meaningless buzzwords, soundbites and clichés which will have done little to counter the cynicism surrounding the alpine junket for the super-rich.

Will.i.am and David Cameron: Hardwiring nonsense into the Davos agenda.

Jan 29, 2016

On Friday it was reported the government is moving 'Northern Powerhouse' jobs to London. The Mirror reports:

"The Government's 'Northern Powerhouse' department is to shut down its office in Sheffield, moving 247 jobs to London in a blow to the credibility of George Osborne's pet project. And a dozen more regional offices of the Department for Business Innovation and Skills - including six in the North of England - are at risk of closure as the department moves to centralise policy staff."

It would be tempting to declare ‘you couldn’t make it up’ or brand such a ludicrously self-defeating plan 'beyond parody', but on this occasion that wouldn’t be true because satirical news site the Daily Mash made up this very story last November:

"The best place for the ‘Northern Powerhouse’ scheme is probably in London after all, the government has announced. The massive investment project for Northern business and infrastructure will now take place in the capital instead, making it easier for government ministers to visit and find a decent restaurant."

Nov 07, 2015

No sooner had I flagged a laughable piece of product placement in an apparent news article on the Daily Mail's website than somebody flagged this clumsy effort from music title the NME last week which was supposed to be about the 10 best debut albums of the year:

"In the second of four blog posts that look back over an incredible year in music, we hone in on the debut albums that have set our pulses racing. With so many album reviews on NME.com, we armed ourselves with Windows 10 on the lightning-fast Surface Pro 3 tablet, a device Microsoft promise can replace your laptop."

It went on...

"Thanks to a neat feature on the new Windows web browser Edge, we snapped multiple web pages..."

And on...

"...we streamed via... the Windows 10 digital streaming service with an online music catalogue of over 38 million tracks. Hefty."

And on...

"In less than five minutes we'd bought tickets and used digital assistant Cortana to email our gig buddy, add the date to our calendar and set a reminder...so even if we're out and about the reminder will pop up on our phone. Nice one."

Nice one. Now can Cortana also pass me a bucket, because I think I'm about to be sick.

Of course brands want publicity and publications need to make money. Neither of those things are wrong, but it is the ham-fisted way some publications are going about it that should serve as a warning to everybody.

Microsoft should be embarrassed they paid anything for something so witless and the NME should hang their heads in shame at publishing something so cringe-worthy because this kind of puff-piece lets down readers and advertisers alike.

Producing "sponsored content" mustn't be taken as a licence to insult the intelligence of readers or do a half-arsed job on behalf of advertisers, otherwise both will be lost.

Oct 14, 2015

It seems the English language has become so mangled by business speak that even "straight talking" has become synonymous with unnecessary jargon, euphemism and buzz words.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey yesterday emailed staff to announce a round of redundancies, promising them "I'm going to give it to you straight".

But of course these weren’t redundancies or lay-offs. After a little discussion of a "streamlined roadmap" and "a bold peek into the future" Dorsey announced "significant structural changes" to engineering that will enable Twitter to "move much faster with a smaller and nimbler team". What’s more, "the rest of the organization will be streamlined in parallel", enabling Twitter to "reinvest in our most impactful priorities".

Dorsey signed off his email by urging anybody with questions to "reach out to me directly", of course.

The most desperate of the Mail's recent criticisms of the BBC picks up on what newspapers Auntie reads. We've seen this story before. It was a pretty shaky story back in 2012 and still doesn't stand up to much scrutiny now.

"The BBC has been accused of 'propping up its friends in the Left-wing media'" claims the Mail, adding the Guardian is "the most popular title in its offices by far" with 80,679 copies bought last year. "By far" is possibly a stretch. The total number of copies of the Guardian circulating at the BBC last year outnumbered copies of the second-placed Daily Mail (78,463) by just 2.7%. Third-placed was The Times (77,167) and fourth The Telegraph (75,308) suggesting right-wing newspapers are more than well-represented within the BBC.

The Mail is keen to paint the Guardian sales as proof of political bias, but given the Guardian's focus on covering the media industry in-depth it is easy to imagine it is relevant to more people and more departments within the BBC than many of its competitors.

Meanwhile, The Sun this week claimed: "BEEB BLOWS £100k A WEEK ON PR GURUS". It was a story eagerly seized upon by the Mail who went with lower case and decided to write the number out in full: "BBC blows £100,000 a week on PR gurus".

However, neither headline was particularly accurate. The Mail explained: "the BBC hired 11 firms [including] well-known market leaders… Deloitte, KPMG and PWC" - none of which, it should be pointed out, are "well-known" PR companies or even "gurus" for that matter.

Perhaps both papers thought explaining the BBC had spent a lot of money on auditing, accounting, systems integration and management consultancy, as most large firms do, didn't sound profligate enough so went with "PR gurus" instead.

The Mail wasn’t even sure what these companies were doing at the BBC but suggests they may have been advising on things such as "health and safety" and "money".

You could argue the Mail firing off an angry article when they didn’t really know what they were angry about is a bit shoddy, but actually that's also the BBC's fault according to the Taxpayers' Alliance who are never far away from such stories.

“The Taxpayers' Alliance… told MailOnline the BBC should 'come clean' on exactly what the consultants were brought in to do. Andy Silvester, campaign director for the Taxpayers' Alliance, said: 'Licence fee payers deserve more transparency. Consultants can occasionally help save money in the long term but how can you judge that if we have no idea what they are doing on a day to day basis.”

Good question. How can you judge this without all the facts? Quite easily apparently. The Mail is certainly in no doubt that this is an outrageous sum of money. However, the Mail doesn’t tell us what would be a reasonable amount of money for an organisation the size of the BBC to spend with such companies.

A BBC spokesman told the Mail:

"On occasion, just like any other organisation, we use external companies for specialist services. This saves the BBC millions of pounds because it is cheaper than employing permanent, full-time staff to carry out work which could only last a short period."

And finally...to the weather. The Sun, the Mail, the Telegraph and a host of other outlets have all picked up a story this week about the BBC apparently recruiting an unqualified, disabled weather presenter.

The story isn't quite as billed, of course. There is no job and there is no job ad and the BBC certainly isn't about to put an inexperienced weather presenter on-screen based purely on the fact they are disabled. Rather there is BBC Academy course offering experience and training to would-be weather presenters with a disability:

"The BBC Academy is running a free training opportunity to provide an introduction to the world of weather presenting to help men and women with a disability feel comfortable appearing on television, radio and online presenting weather bulletins."

Participants will be given training and "experience in presenting weather bulletins to camera" but crucially there is no promise of a job at the end. Those who complete the training "will be eligible to apply for future vacancies in the team" but the suggestion the BBC is in the process of appointing a weather presenter on a "no qualifications necessary, must be disabled" basis is a clear distortion.

Mar 31, 2015

The starting pistol was officially fired for the general election campaign on Monday and the photo opportunities began in earnest. A very self-aware Nick Clegg rushed straight off to get himself photographed next to a sign that said 'Danger Deep Water':

Clegg was actually visiting a hedgehog sanctuary. Presumably somebody told him there was still a chance of winning some votes from the rarely-targeted 'people-who-like-hedgehogs' demographic:

"The poor, defenceless creature just looked like he wanted to curl up into a ball and hide," said the hedgehog after meeting Nick Clegg. (Credit: Getty)

Meanwhile Chancellor George Osborne headed off to Pizza Express to get himself photographed making pizzas. Presumably the message here is all about the economy: Britain is in so much debt that the Chancellor kneads more dough...

Nobody could accuse the Huffington Post of over-promising with this tweet.

Meanwhile David Cameron was chasing the youth vote by telling Heat magazine that he is Kim Kardashian's cousin. One of them of course is often regarded as little more than a famous arse, the other is married to Kanye West. Their family trees apparently meet back in 1555 with a common ancestor called Sir William Spencer, making them cousins 13 times removed. Them and most of the northern hemisphere.

And what about Ed Miliband, what's he been up to this week? All told, it's not been a bad week for the Labour leader, relatively speaking. Despite some roughing up from Jeremy Paxman in the first televised leaders' non-debate, Miliband emerged not only in tact but with a four point lead for his party.

Cameron, who benefited from an easier ride from presenters Paxman and Kay Burley - sparking complaints to Ofcom - was declared the winner by his own camp, who clung on doggedly to an ICM poll that scored the contest 54 to 46 in the Prime Minister's favour. But Miliband's supporters, not unreasonably, suggested a more meaningful poll was that which showed the reaction among floating voters - a 56 to 30 win for Miliband. That sentiment appeared to be reflected in a marked swing in Miliband's favour in the opinion polls and The Sunday Times - not normally one to unduly champion a Labour leader - certainly declared it a Miliband victory:

The Sunday Times declared Channel 4 programme The Battle For Number 10 a success for Ed Miliband.

Miliband may have won a few people over but the week was not without the obligatory PR gaffe from within the Labour camp. Over the weekend it emerged the party was selling mugs pledging to get tough on immigration. It might be one of their election pledges but who thought this would look good on a coffee cup?

With the possible exception of a UKIP coffee morning, it's hard to imagine a social, domestic or workplace situation that couldn't be made more awkward by handing somebody a hot drink in a mug showing you support tougher immigration measures.

Mar 24, 2015

Cameron announces he doesn't plan to be Prime Minister beyond 2020. It puts me in mind of the time Andy Cole announced his retirement from international football.

David Cameron has told the BBC's James Lansdale he doesn't fancy another two terms with him as Prime Minister.

He's probably not the only one.

But it's an odd PR move. Cameron hasn't even won the forthcoming election, yet he's talking publicly about not fancying a third term from 2020.

What's more he's 'fired the starting pistol' for the race to succeed him as party leader and Prime Minister, should Cameron triumph at the polls in May but make may for a new leader to fight the 2020 election, which sounds like the plan.

If Cameron was looking for a statement that would 1) make him appear even more arrogant, 2) Confuse voters, and 3) Divide his own party less than two months from a general election he's struck gold.

According to Ladbrokes, Boris is favourite (5/2) to succeed Cameron. Theresa May (4/1) and George Osborne (7/1) make up the top of the market. Or you can still get 33/1 on Grant Shapps. He can at least count on Michael Green's vote.

Mar 19, 2015

It seems Danny Alexander may have been feeling a little overlooked by the Budget coverage. There was a moment during the news broadcasts on Wednesday when he definitely seemed to be coveting George Osborne's red briefcase:

Alexander's response has been to seek out some media coverage of his own, with a remarkable photo call. Looking like he was arriving for his first day as Mayor of Legoland, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury posed for the cameras with a big yellow briefcase to herald the announcement of his own alternative budget.

He was basically playing a dress-up game of 'Chancellor of the Exchequer' with a case that looked like he'd made it himself from a Selfridges bag:

"Maybe try it without the jacket? No, it still doesn't look quite right."

His PR team must actually hate him. They might as well have painted a target on him.

Inevitably, people on Twitter had a field day:

If this was Danny Alexander's first day of secondary school that thing would be on the roof of the PE block by now. pic.twitter.com/W8QRjJiiWN

Mar 16, 2015

The 'over-firm denial' must surely be added to the political euphemism hall of fame, following Grant Shapps' admission that he did flog get-rich-quick schemes using a pseudonym while working as a serving MP - a fact he had previously denied.

The Tory party chairman has now admitted those denials were "over-firmly" stated.

Shapps has now admitted there was crossover and has conceded he may have been 'over-firm' in his past denials. Even more 'over-firm' was Shapps' reported use of legal threats. The Guardian reports:

"Last November [Shapps] used legal threats to force a local constituent ...to delete [a] post on Facebook... about... the pseudonym and replace it with an apology that explicitly states that he was not using the Michael Green pseudonym when he was an MP."

Supporters of Shapps have been quick to rally round and attempt some pretty crude distraction and misdirection. A Tory spokesman told the BBC that "like many authors and journalists, Grant wrote with a pen name," which is true but irrelevant to the question of whether Shapps provided misleading answers about his outside business interests. Health secretary Jeremy Hunt defended Shapps on Twitter, making reference to his past business interests but again overlooked the more topical allegation which is that Shapps misled voters and the media about the extent of his involvement in those business interests:

Hunt blames the whole thing on a Labour/Guardian/BBC lefty conspiracy for good measure.

However, many of Hunt's followers were quick to point out the allegations he'd overlooked:

They weren't lies of course. He just "over-firmly" stated his denials.

Mar 15, 2015

So now we know. Ed Miliband has more kitchens than Nigel Farage has testicles.

And people say political journalism is dumbing down.

Yes, it turns out Farage has only got one ball which will do nothing to end some unwelcome comparisons to famous fascists from history. For good measure he's also written a book outlining his vision of a far-right revolution.

The book, entitled The Purple Revolution (which sounds more like a Prince tribute act), is being serialised by The Telegraph. So far we've learned two things: 1) One of Farage's testicles once swelled to the size of a lemon before it was removed, 2) The Telegraph certainly isn't shy about sending repetitive tweets.

Here's just a selection of their tweets from Saturday:

The "revolution" in question apparently began last year when Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless became the MPs for Clacton and Rochester and Strood. The previous MPs in those constituencies, of course, being Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless.

Some revolution.

The title and even the design of Farage's book also suggest it is in part a response to stand-up comedian Russell Brand, who in December last year described Farage as "a pound shop Enoch Powell" during one of the UKIP leader's many appearances on Question Time:

Coming to a pound shop near you? Farage's book bears a striking similarity in look and design to that of Russell Brand. (Credit: Amazon.co.uk)

Ed Miliband meanwhile, it has been revealed, is the proud owner of not one but TWO kitchens in his North London home.

Miliband's surplus of kitchens came to light after the Daily Mail's Sarah Vine (the wife of Tory chief whip Michael Gove, lest we forget) criticised Miliband's kitchen after it appeared on a BBC programme.

"Surely that can’t really be Ed and Justine’s kitchen?" wrote Vine, rambling to such an extent she almost stumbled accidentally upon some truth. "I hope for their sake it’s their utility room and some bossy spin doctor has shoved them in there to ...bolster Ed’s man-o’-the-people image."

Vine is on fairly thin ice with such kitchen-based snobbery, as a comment on the Mail's website pointed out:

You can remind yourself what else Michael Gove claimed on expenses here.

Also wading into kitchengate was Times journalist and Miliband family-friend Jenni Russell who pointed out the kitchen he was filmed in was just a "functional kitchenette", not to be confused with the Milibands' main kitchen which is "lovely" and definitely big enough to sit in (though possibly too big to be filmed in).

Russell's explanation of the differences between Miliband's various kitchens perhaps qualifies as a case of "with friends like that..." because Ed certainly doesn't need any more enemies right now. He's even got more enemies than kitchens.

And his enemies' enemy is clearly understatement.

"No kitchen since the Borgias has ever produced anything so toxic," wrote Robert Mendick of the Telegraph, with the same paper declaring in a separate article: "Ed Miliband's two kitchens expose the plastic inauthenticity of the Labour leader".

As the Telegraph's Michael Deacon noted of the inevitable and plentiful criticisms:

Mar 08, 2015

In 2010 the UK got its first taste of televised leaders' debates. The format was rigid, the sound bites over-rehearsed and the anecdotes tiresome and unconvincing.

Nick Clegg was generally judged to be the 'winner' though his party lost five seats in the election, while David Cameron put in a poor performance and became Prime Minister.

Some suggest the debates were moderately effective in engaging more people in politics, others suggest they merely served as a reminder of how out of touch the leaders really are. Turnout at 65.1 per cent was up slightly on 2005 (61.4 per cent). But it was down on 1997 (71.4 per cent) which may be a smarter comparison as 1997 and 2010 both offered the prospect of a likely change of government - a factor which tends to motivate supporters of all sides more than foregone conclusions like 2001 (59.4 per cent turnout) and 2005 (61.4 per cent).

So it's unclear what we really learned from this first taste of televised debates.

Yet to the read the papers, watch the news or hear MPs discussing the issue of this year’s in-doubt debates, you’d think this was a tradition as old and important as democracy itself.

In the entire history of British politics there have been three televised leaders’ debates, amounting to around four hours of air time. Yet Ed Miliband has said the leaders’ debates must be enshrined in law and the issue is dominating the run-up to the election.

It would be a shame if the debates don't happen, especially if they do engage even a few extra potential voters.

Those who have long since made up their minds but like to air their cynicism and sarcasm on Twitter during such TV events would also feel denied. But let's not pretend that what's at stake here are voters' rights. The whole issue boils down to PR and the leaders’ personal and political ambitions and agendas.

Those with the most to gain from the debates happening are keen to talk up their importance. The person with the least to gain, David Cameron, is keen to confuse and evade the issue.

Cameron has already enjoyed one term as Prime Minister secured by default and is clearly counting on replicating the feat, even if it means facing a charge of cowardice. He clearly believes going on television in front of 10 million viewers, to become the butt of online jokes and living room ridicule will only damage his campaign. What’s more, Cameron’s campaign team will be well aware that Ed Miliband's approval rating is at rock bottom and he could only benefit by Cameron agreeing to go toe-to-toe with him.

Understandably Miliband is desperate for the debates to take place, or at least for people to think Cameron has wronged the entire country if he doesn’t take part. He is no doubt aware that enshrining the debates in law is unworkable but he just wants people to think they are that important. But it’s easy to imagine Cameron isn't the only Tory who thinks facing criticism from their critics is preferable to helping Labour get Miliband's PR campaign back on track.

Mar 05, 2015

Ed Miliband seems to have mistaken the leaders debates for a soon-to-be-bitterly-contested boxing match. Treating an interview on Sky News like a pre-fight press conference, Miliband sent a message to David Cameron, saying he'll take him on "any time, any place, anywhere".

It doesn't have to be in the TV studio, Ed's happy to go shirts-off in the back car park of the Red Lion.

Cameron is having none of it meanwhile. His PR team have put down their glasses of Premier Cru and wrapped their arms around him, screaming "Leave it Dave! It ain't worth it!".

And they're probably right.

Cameron seems to be counting on a win by default rather than knock-out in this election and his PR team will have realised turning up for these debates will do nothing to boost his popularity or his chances, while Miliband arguably has nothing left to lose and everything to win.

Cameron's preferred option certainly appears to be the relative safety of the group debate.

Meanwhile, Labour bruiser John Prescott went on Twitter to suggest Cameron is a chicken... or maybe a cock, it's not immediately clear:

And Miliband is also goading Cameron on Twitter. He even @-mentioned him and everything. Twit just got real...

And if the image of a bare-chested Ed Miliband and David Cameron squaring off in a pub car park while John Prescott hurls digital clip art at them isn't a troubling enough image, how about the headline on this Vine video from the BBC's Robin Brant:

Don't you just hate it when social media sites cut things off mid-sentence? At least, I hope there was more to that sentence.

And speaking of car parks, it wouldn't be an election without an MP's car being photographed in a disabled space - it's a text book PR own goal, made all the more easy to spot - and all the more easy for journalists to stand up - when the car is prominently decorated with the MP's name and face.

Feb 25, 2015

When we come to look back on the general election campaign, this week may be remembered as the week the wheels came off for two of the parties hoping to break into the political mainstream in 2015.

Green Party leader Natalie Bennett gave the election campaign's first real car crash interview on LBC on Tuesday (though being the Greens it was probably a hybrid car crash, so at least it had lower emissions than other political car crashes).

In the face of fairly friendly questioning from LBC presenter Nick Ferrari, Bennett fell apart. Ferrari presented Bennett with a green light opportunity to announce her party’s election promises and Bennett went about it with all the cool, calm composure of somebody falling down a flight of stairs.

Bennett's facts and figures sounded made up and certainly didn't add up. Her delivery was panicked and faltering. The low point - not easy to single out in one of the most horrible political interviews in living memory - was the briefest of moments, the intonation on a single word.

At one point Bennett mentioned a number "2.7", then paused... then paused a little longer... before adding "billion" with all the confidence of somebody who wasn't even sure if "billion" is a real word, let alone the word she was looking for.

Bennett tried to blame her abysmal performance on having a cold. Even the excuse was a bit rubbish. But she isn't alone in offering half-baked excuses to cover up for half-baked ideas and awful interviews. At the opposite end of the political and ethical spectrum, UKIP have a remarkable record of trying to blame their racist and homophobic outbursts on everything from tiredness to medication.

And UKIP were back in the spotlight this week at a time when the party's star has undoubtedly been on the wane. BBC2 programme Meet The Ukippers introduced us to the members and activists at the heart of the party.

During the programme we met an array of characters and heard many times how UKIP definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely isn't racist.

In fact Nigel Farage went to lengths to explain that this perception of UKIP being racist is all the fault of the media. And definitely not the fault of the UKIP members who say racist things.

At the centre of the programme was UKIP's South Thanet press officer, Liz Langton-Way, who actually seemed surprised to discover some UKIP members are racist.

It's always the ones you least expect, eh Liz.

The programme showed how Langton-Way, the proprietor of Thanet's first dog hotel, likes to surround herself with clowns (possibly explaining why she chose to work for UKIP). Her luckless task, she explained, was to ensure UKIP generates only positive headlines and keeps clear of scandal.

Remarkably, Langton-Way made her impossible job appear even more difficult than it surely should be. At one point she was sat on a sofa having a natter and stroking her dogs while a party member made a series of controversial comments on camera. It's hard to believe that was advice she found in the How To Be A Press Officer handbook. But Langton-Way certainly wasn't helped by party members such as Janice Atkinson MEP referring to an Asian constituent as a "Ting Tong".

UKIP councillor Rozanne Duncan also didn't help matters when discussing on camera the fact that she doesn't like "negroes". Duncan doesn't know why she doesn't like "negroes". She just doesn't like "them".

But she's definitely not racist. She was adamant about that, though not everybody was convinced:

What was so very UKIP about Rozanne's racism is the bafflement that anyone could possibly consider it racist #MeetTheUkippers

"For Christ's sake, I was never a member of the Gestapo," said Heale, setting a remarkably low benchmark for what UKIP considers respectable.

Of course, not having been in the Gestapo isn't their only criteria. Heale pointed out he also "was not a member of the Stasi" and has never served any time in prison.

What a catch.

Martyn Heale, whose impressive CV includes not being a member of the Gestapo and not being a member of the Stasi. He also hasn't been to prison.

The troubles of the Green Party and UKIP alike will inevitably do little to deter their hard core of support.

If anything, the accusations of racism which follow UKIP wherever they go have probably been an effective recruitment tool for the party. Conversely, Green Party supporters are probably all too nice to be deterred by Bennett's abysmal performance or think any less of her because of it. Even now they are probably sending her some echinacea for her cold.

But damage will surely have been done to their chances of recruiting supporters outside their hard core - the floating voters who were hoping a challenger party might offer a credible alternative at the polls.

Feb 21, 2015

It seems the Telegraph is intent on ignoring the widely accepted best practice advice on what to do when in a hole.

Following an attack on the Guardian on Friday, the paper has now launched a shocking attack on News UK, publisher of The Times and The Sun, bringing up the tragic suicides of two News UK employees purely, it would seem, to score points about the commercial pressures within the company. The Telegraph includes this detail in an article which claims the lines have become blurred between News UK's editorial and commercial teams.

The Telegraph's attacks on its competitors follow the very public resignation of its chief political commentator Peter Oborne who made a series of allegations - strongly denied by the Telegraph - about the extent to which the paper had let commercial decisions cloud its own editorial judgement.

A number of competitors were quick to throw stones but whether they were doing so from the safe moral high ground or from inside a glass house, the Telegraph should have focused on its own reputation. Not least because trying to drag others into the mire only serves to reinforce the idea the Telegraph is in that mire already. If the playground taught us anything it's that a defence of 'but they did it too' is no defence at all.

The paper has made a series of increasingly poor decisions at a time when its editorial judgement is under the spotlight. First came a petulant leader column. Then a rather desperate attack on the Guardian. Now the Telegraph claims News UK's creative content director "said journalists...had to get their "hands dirty" in order to please advertisers". Those comments were apparently made during an on the record interview about 'native advertising' - the paid-for editorial-like content which sits alongside editorial. While a divisive subject which blurs the lines between advertising and editorial, it is still very different to what Oborne alleged the Telegraph was doing.

But trying to gain mileage out of deaths at a competitor represents an unfathomable low.

However wounded the Telegraph's pride was by Oborne's public resignation the damage the company is now inflicting upon its own reputation is arguably far worse.

And if that doesn't work, Labour has a plan B which involves sticking a ribbon on it and painting some puppies, unicorns and ponies on the side.

The decision to woo women with a pink bus certainly attracted a mix of criticism and derision this week and a level of media coverage that was probably disproportionate to whatever offence it really caused.

However, while some cried "patronising" and others cried "massive over-reaction" it does seem odd that nobody in Labour's hapless PR team could see how this would inevitably backfire at a time when the media knives are out for the party and everybody is looking to see the awkward and the ludicrous in all they do.

But undeterred by accusations of being patronising, Harman headed off in her little pink bus in search of some women to talk to in kitchens and supermarkets.

Inevitably some have suggested men are the real victims in all of this. Overlooked and forgotten about once more. So perhaps we should expect to see Ed Balls touring the country in a tank that plays the Match of the Day theme and fires out cans of lager.

Not to be outdone by Labour's little pink PR snafu, the Conservatives staged a glittering £15,000 per table PR horror show / fundraising ball this week where super rich party supporters were given the opportunity to get their credit cards out and ingratiate themselves with the Tory hierarchy.

This festival of fat-cattery included an auction where donors keen to curry favour could bid for lots such as a copy of the budget, signed by George Osborne.

No really.

Imagine waking up with a stinking hangover and the dread sense you did something really stupid last night, only to remember you paid a fortune for a copy of the budget, signed by George Osborne.

For most normal people there would be no coming back from that. Even once you’d destroyed the evidence by shredding it and burning the receipt and credit card bill and moved house and changed your name, the shame would never leave you. You'd never be able to see George Osborne on television without being wracked with a crippling sense of guilt and self-loathing.

"Why do you leave the room to go and sit in the kitchen sobbing whenever George Osborne comes on television?" a family member might ask, if that didn't actually seem a pretty reasonable reaction.

Or how about shoe shopping with Theresa May?

No me either.

But apparently that lot raised £17,500. That's right, somebody paid £17,500 to go shoe shopping with the Home Secretary though presumably they were more interested in ‘talking shop’ than talking shopping. After all, if they were just interested in shoe shopping they could have spent their £17,500 far more wisely.

£17,500 would buy a lot of shoes.

The auction is really a mechanism for packaging up large donations to the party while avoiding some of the ugliness of just handing over a wad of cash with a nod and a wink. As a fundraising exercise it was no doubt a massive success but from a PR point of view it will surely have served only to reinforce many voters' suspicions about the party.

It's almost as if they sat around brainstorming the worst possible idea for an event.

"What can we do to show people how little we care about what they think and how far removed our lives are from their dismal existence?"

"What about a £15,000 per table ball?"

"With an auction!"

"Where people shell out thousands for relatively worthless items, like tea with Julian Fellowes or some roast chicken with Michael Gove."

The Tory party gets to bank the cash, the donor gets to bank a favour and somebody gets to eat chicken with Michael Gove.

Not all the lots fell into the 'cash for companionship' with a cabinet minister bracket. There was an opportunity to shoot some pheasants (which was definitely not a typo, apparently), an opportunity to shoot some deer and also the chance to own a JCB digger for anybody whose gardener needs a bit of help with the weeding on the country estate. Bidders could also pay for the chance to kick a poor person down a flight of stairs, burn down a food bank or close a hospital of their choosing.

And finally, The Sun which has often led the criticism of Miliband and Co. last week dispatched a colleague to the foothills of the Himalayas after the Labour leader had joked that there may still be some "yak farmers in Nepal" who haven't yet seen the infamous photos of him fighting a losing battle against a bacon sandwich.

So The Sun put paid to that:

The Sun spent so much on air fares there was nothing left to spend on the headline.

Feb 01, 2015

The Labour Party has declared the general election should be fought "on issues rather than personalities" and said it will lead the way by not using any pictures of David Cameron in its campaign posters.

In a memo to party members, widely reported in the media, Douglas Alexander, Labour's chair of election strategy, declared: "We’ll focus our campaign on issues not personalities - we won’t run any billboard posters with pictures of David Cameron on them."

It's easy to see why Labour would want everybody to play fair because while this change of heart is good news for those who want politicians to start acting their age, it also appear a preemptive attempt to address the issue of Ed Miliband's public image, arguably Labour's weakest and most exposed vulnerability.

As PR tactics go it's probably worth a try. It may come from the 'Making the best of a bad situation' section of the PR handbook but it does at least put the ball in the Conservatives' court and challenges them to keep the campaign clean or risk looking petty if they crack on and seek to further undermine Miliband with personal attacks.

Nov 14, 2014

Jargon, gibberish, twaddle: Whatever you call it there's too much in PR, marketing and the media.

I was recently speaking with a PR person who represented a large shopping centre.

"We never refer to it as a shopping centre," I was told.

"Really? What do you call it?" I asked.

"A retail and leisure destination."

"But what does everybody else call it?"

"A shopping centre."

It's hard to imagine somebody stopping you in the street and asking if there is a "retail and leisure destination" nearby. It's a small example but it neatly illustrates how people employed to communicate are prone to a counter-intuitive use of language that often introduces the potential for confusion and misunderstanding.

Last week, I read news reports that supermarket chain Morrison's is "up-streaming" its "invisible manufacturing". And who can forget when Burberry "exited doors not aligned with brand status and invested in presentation through both enhanced assortments and dedicated, customised real estate in key doors". Or how about when HSBC "demised" nearly 1,000 jobs.

I also recently read about an "immersive cheese pop-up" in Shoreditch (of course). It was apparently "a 360 degree cheese experience like no other" - or a "shop" as our forebears may quite adequately have said, to the easy comprehension of anybody listening.

A quote attributed to Albert Einstein goes something along the lines of "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough".

It's a sentiment that everybody who works in and around the media, advertising, marketing and PR would do well to take note of because jargon has become the norm to such an extent that even when telling people not to use jargon some people are still using it.

At a recent PR event one speaker told delegates, seemingly without irony, "you can't talk in jargon and wonder why you don't get cut-through".

The Guardian has today published a list of jargon words and phrases that the PR industry is particularly guilty of overusing. "Cut-through" doesn't make the list, but synergy, groundbreaking and leverage are all on there. (John Rentoul's 'banned list' also offers a worthy collection of cliches and jargon words which should be avoided.)

Of course the creeping onset of such jargon has been coming for a while. Those 'game changing solutions providers' who like to 'leverage multi-channel synergies' or get 'cut-through from a holistic engagement strategy' in the hopes of publicising their 'seismic paradigm shifts going forward' have been clogging up workplaces and conversations for years but it seems to be getting a lot more 'traction'.

And it needs to stop. A quick trawl of press releases issued via Sourcewire.com today threw up everything from some awards for "game changers" to a "marketing platform [that] allows us to fully leverage best-in-breed solutions". There was a lot of leveraging going on.

The fog of jargon is no doubt created to mask insecurities or shortcomings. You only have to watch The Apprentice on BBC1 to see the use of jargon and competence are often inversely proportional.

It has provided rich-pickings for comedy writers:

"We've got a paradigm, we need to shift it".

But rather than laugh out of the room anybody who speaks like this, too many of us have nodded and joined in, perhaps for fear of exposing confusion, doubt or disloyalty. Or perhaps through laziness. It is not so much the Emperor's new clothes, more the Emperor's utter bollocks.

Effective communication needs to be about making complicated things sound simple. Not the reverse.